Chevrolet hopes their plug-in electric – gas powered Volt will become America’s sweetheart. Yet GM’s boldly going where the fully electric vehicle (EV) has gone before. Forget the EV-1. I’m referring to the Baker Electric of 1899. Thomas Edison’s first car (as an owner) was a commercial success, with an effective range of around 100 miles. Today's prototypes, upon which manufacturers are presently lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars, can double that. So what’s the big deal?
The big deal: mass producing a comfortable, affordable electric vehicle (EV) that meets current safety standards, with sufficient performance, durability, driving range and recharge times to make it a viable alternative to existing, highly-developed gas or gas-electric powered alternatives. And that’s without considering recharging logistics.
Simply put, Americans depend on their cars to do too much to depend on current EVs. Even using the latest Lithium-Ion battery technology, electric cars work best for short commutes and errand runs in sleepy suburbs. Unless you can plug-in and recharge at a gas station in ten minutes, the average American owner will have to stash the EV on the weekend and break out the “real car.” Without credible highway capability and/or a quick recharge option, buyers with only enough money for one car will be making a petroleum decision.
Yes, the auto industry’s best and brightest are on the case. Still, absent some miracle battery or materials breakthrough, it will be a long time before America sings the car body electric.
Of all the challenges obscuring America’s electric car future, safety is the biggest stumbling block. Simple physics tells us that the EV’s enemy is weight. Build a tiny EV out of balsa wood and the range issue disappears. Meanwhile, here in the real world, feather light, safe, mid-sized, mass-produced and affordable doesn’t compute.
To wit: the Tesla Roadster is a relatively minuscule, hugely expensive, light weight (carbon fiber) automobile with zero luggage space– and it still struggles to travel 200 miles on a single charge. Even with bleeding edge battery technology, a mass-produced (steel-bodied) mid-size car equipped with the requisite safety structures and devices (i.e. without Tesla’s airbag waiver) doesn’t stand a chance of matching a gas-powered car’s range or convenience. However, remove that barrier…
And you’re in the developing world, where safety takes a back seat to… everything. Which is why the development of the mass-produced EV will occur off-shore.
India’s Tata Motors recently unveiled the revolutionary $2500 Tata Nano. When Tata unveiled their "people's car," they claimed the machine passed frontal and side impact tests– without specifying whose tests they passed. It’s highly unlikely the Nano could meet American or European safety standards. More to the point, Tata immediately announced plans to build an electric Nano.
Ask any golf cart owner; cheap, small and light are the foundations for a successful EV. The Nano will make a perfect EV. It's small and light, thanks to a cardboard front axle and door panels made from ice chips. The machine’s target market isn’t overly-concerned with airbags, cupholders, leg room, highway cruising speeds or huge cruising distances. It's all about purchase price and operating costs.
At the same time, Israel has just announced that it’s partnered with Renault-Nissan to build electric cars. In smog-soaked Tel Aviv, electric cars will shift much of the city’s transportation energy needs to from petroleum to cleaner energy generation sources, like solar, wind, and nuclear power (in Israel’s case, not using petroleum has other political benefits, too). The government’s action guarantees the economies of scale that will make it worthwhile for Renault to test the EV waters. Equally important, the gov’s inclusion will assure the lowering of any safety-related regulatory hurdles.
Phase one of EV mass production will begin in India, Israel, Africa, China and other “developing” countries, where driving conditions are right, the safety requirements are less substantial, and the government is willing to interfere with the market to make it worth a manufacturer’s efforts. And speaking of governmental interference…
Gasoline production and distribution in the developing world tends to be incredibly inefficient, expensive and corrupt (e.g. Zimbabwe’s ongoing gas rationing crisis). If these countries use electric vehicles, their citizens can generate motive power any number of ways on the local level: solar, wind, coal, burning garbage, whatever. So why wouldn’t they “skip” right to electric powered vehicles, and enjoy the economic prosperity that mobility brings? While realpolitik argues against this kind of energy “democratization,” the possibility exists.
America will not be left on the EV sidelines. Once millions EV batteries are field tested, once manufacturers are churning-out large numbers of electric vehicles and their related components, the economies of scale will bring the cost down substantially– and spur more development. At some point, we’ll have our EV cake and put it in a large, comfortable, safe and practical automotive package, too.
Nice round-up of the challenges ahead for EV.
A couple of points:
Vehicle safety standards are a function of the speed at which vehicles travel. Reduce the speed, and you will have reduced the need to build “the perfect cage” for the occupants. Don’t assume that serious speed reductions won’t be on the agenda. The former head of Shell Europe recently called for banning all autos that didn’t do better than 35mpg — another indicator of things to come.
The average American vehicle used for personal transportation covers 30 miles per day. Yes, you read that right – 30 miles per day.
An American family living in a suburban area or in private communities has two to three+ cars in the garage.
A majority of the transportation requirements presently “solved” by 10mpg family fuelburners could easily be handled by today’s EVs, and I feel you make too much of this point:
Even using the latest Lithium-Ion battery technology, electric cars only really work for short commutes and errand runs in sleepy suburbs. Unless you can plug-in and recharge at a gas station in ten minutes, the average American owner will have to stash the EV on the weekend and break out the “real car.”
People are buying cars they don’t need, to solve tasks that never (or very, very rarely) present themselves — and if one or two of those three cars were EVs, the family would get along excellently.
The U.S., and many other countries for that matter, still have to reconcile that they overwhelmingly rely on coal for power and what will happen when millions of cars are plugging into the grid, be it off-peak use or not.
Great article.
EV’s made with tube frames and largely fabric skins would be an excellent solution if a nation were starting from scratch. Huge acceleration, huge fun and way safer than thousands of pounds of steel.
If I were a transportation minister in India or China I would mandate commuter vehicles could not be allowed to weigh more than the combined weight of two average passengers, say 300 lbs.
For the developed world, companies like Bombardier could build lightweight vehicles for offroad and similar recreational uses in order to position themselves for any acute energy crisis. Can you imagine how quickly they would dominate the personal transportation market if the Strait of Hormuz suddenly shut? SUV’s would be driveway sculptures, rather than road hazards at that point.
@86er,
Coal is a nightmare, and it will only get worse, until we get serious about carbon sequestration and huge scrubbers. In theory having fewer “massive tailpipes” should make it easier to cope with the problem. Regulations and research are urgently required, because the dirty little secret about the future of energy requirements, is the centrality of coal to meeting them.
Justin, good article. Keep in mind, the Baker's top speed was 20mph, which is below the point where wind resistance becomes a factor. A Tesla would probably go 500 miles at 20mph (seriously). The efficiency gains of EV’s over gas cars is greatest at low speeds. That’s exactly what makes the challenge of functional EV’s for the US (freeway) lifestyle so challenging. And what makes the technical (range) advances of cars like the Tesla pretty impressive, despite the ribbing they get here at TTAC. (BTW, that Tesla airbag waiver is not for air bags per se, but just the more advanced type. The Lotus Elise, upon which the Tesla is based, has the same waiver. Without that waiver, we would never have gotten the Elise in the US.)
Some great points in both the article and the comments. EV’s will have a tough time catching on in North America because of our expectations. In developing countries with few cars and commensurately low expectations, a small, lightweight and slow electric car would still be a revelation and miles better than the alternative (four kids hanging off the side of a smelly two-stroke 50cc scooter).
So why wouldn’t they “skip” right to electric powered vehicles, and enjoy the economic prosperity that mobility brings?
Because the typical third world family has no place to plug the car in overnight. Perhaps you think they all live in nice big ranch houses with garages?
Or to quote an old Bloom County (as best I can recall it), your plan fails because porcupines are allergic to raisin bran….
My great-grandmother owned a Baker Electric before the Great War. It was popular with women, because it did not need to be cranked.
Even if all cars were all electric drawing from all coal plants there would still be a large decrease in carbon emissions. As dirty as coal plants are (~60% efficient), they get much higher overall efficiencies than individual internal combustion engines (~30% efficient). re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
eh_political:
Regulations and research are urgently required, because the dirty little secret about the future of energy requirements, is the centrality of coal to meeting them.
Yup. Either that or go with more nuclear.
Unrealistic environmentalists who dislike all nukes have been strangely silent as coal use increases by 1-2% per year. If I were heavily invested in coal, I’d gladly send these groups a check every year…
Stein,
Presently, the cost of having a car around that can’t meet all your needs overwhelms the savings from having a much more efficient option on every trip.
I have not calculated the break even point, but let’s say you have a Hummer. Then, you win a free electric car which you you actually use for 100% of your trips. Your fuel cost savings will not likely be higher than the depreciation loss, registration, taxes, maintenance, and insurance of the “free” electric car. That is how cheap gas is. You are better off selling one of the cars, and if the EV doesn’t meet ALL your needs and wants, guess which one goes?
I don’t drive a lot, but I looked at getting a low end motorcycle. It simply would not save me enough money to go to the trouble. The first time the thing broke, I would be losing money.
Tesla got one thing right. If you want to get a start on EV’s, it makes a lot of sense to sell one as a toy for rich folks. That way, the money calculations will be about fun, not fuel.
A 200 mile range would be more than enough for me. And if it can go 45mph that’s enough too. (Though I realize most people would want higher top end)
I drive 6.3 miles to work, and of course 6.3 back home. Most days I don’t make any side trips, but with another 88 miles of range available, I wouldn’t worry about doing some errands after work.
I’d immagine there are lots of people like me, and according to the first post, most cars are being used to go 30 miles per day. So we can quit worrying about range. EVs are sufficient as commuter vehicles for a great many of us.
If my wife and I were to replace one vehicle with an EV, and keep one IC vehicle, that would work out just fine for us.
“The average American vehicle used for personal transportation covers 30 miles per day. Yes, you read that right – 30 miles per day.”
That’s great if you’re the fortunate worker that always commutes the average distance and can use company vehicles for business. A few years ago, I would commute four miles to work and back, stopping to swim at a Y near work. My bike was perfect for the quiet day, but I also was expected to drive my own car to weekly staff meetings at the main office 45 miles away, and to progress meetings at building sites 60 or 70 miles away. I would have needed a 150 mile range. Last summer I was driving to a project site in the next state – about 90 miles away. I would have needed a 200 mile range. My bosses drive to many more meetings than I do, and some industry reps (salespeople really) spend much of their lives in the car.
Range issues have convinced me that PHEVs make more sense than EVs.
It (electric cars) was popular with women, because it did not need to be cranked.
Just produced by cranks.
I wonder how many EV Nanos will end up floating down the Ganges when the batteries have degraded so much that they hold about as much charge as my iPod Nano ? There would be little incentive to repair or recycle after the battery dies as it’s probably the most expensive part in the car.
Great article, reasonable conclusion. But what’s with all the hate?
Am I alone in thinking the Tata Nano is pretty cool? Drive a Honda Fit and tell me you need a big expensive car to have fun. Besides, the Nano and its kin are going to change the world in more profound way than a Tesla or hybrid anything. The middle class of the second largest country in the world will be put on wheels. Who can say with any accuracy what will happen?
The Nano is efficient as it stands, but an electric option in the fleet will likely give India a huge economic advantage as oil prices rise. They will generate more value for less oil, and hence, India’s living standards will rise.
I don’t drive a lot, but I looked at getting a low end motorcycle. It simply would not save me enough money to go to the trouble. The first time the thing broke, I would be losing money.
I don’t know how you calculated it but when I switch to a nice used bike 2.5 years ago it paid for itself in about 18 months. At the time I was commuting 65 miles a day round trip in a 20 mpg truck. I only commute 8 miles a day now including coming home for lunch and it only costs me $20 a month in gas, $25/year for insurance and I maintain the $1200 bike myself. I use it to go to site visits and client meetings with out any problems bringing drawings. It’s perfect for my needs right now, an EV that could be as fun and flexible would work also but probably not work out financially. Rain and really cold weather sucks but I have gotten used to it, plus I like being the die hard guy who commutes to work on a motorcycle rain or shine.
Great article and I agree with it, especially when the developing countries get more reliable power generation. If these countries are moving in the direction of EVs they will be sure to improve the infrastructure needed to support it.
Red,
When you start commuting 65 a day, that changes the math a lot. I was looking at going from 8-10k a year, to 12 to 14k a year. I looked at all sorts of scenarios, and when the bike didn’t work, I gave up. I am not average by any means.
Let’s use a different situation get a more useful number:
15,000 miles / 17 mpg x $3.25 per gallon = $2,867
That’s a more likely total fuel bill for a year. The more mpg you get, the less situations will let you take the cheap vehicle. A motorcylce or scooter won’t be used in bad weather, when you have to show up in a suit, with a passenger, etc. OTOH, a Smart car type thing will pass for LOTS of trips.
If you can take a motor bike half the time, you will have to operate the bike for 7,500 miles a year at a cost UNDER $1,450 just to break even. You have interest or opportunity cost on the value, depreciation, maintenance (most folks cannot due it ALL themselves), insurance, registration, and inspection. At best you will save a few hundred dollars a year. Only a biker will take that deal.
Of course, if you can drive a bike as much as you did, then the mpg starts to become more of a likely idea. Also, if it gets you into the HOV lane it could have other value.
However, I don’t see a lot of people going this route. It’s just not worth it. The target is the 2 or more car family in which the extra car/bike will get used in lieu of a necessary vehicle, OR where one of vehicles involved is justified for other reasons like fun.
Now, if you got government to wave all their nonsense, fees, and taxes you would have a start. If you could get the insurance company to be realistic about the fact that one person cannot drive more than one car at a time, that would help also. But still, it’s gonna be tough because gas is so darn cheap.
First Martineck’s piece on oil prices, and now this. TTAC is developing into a place with some must-read editorial material. Impressive!
Israel is a special case. They are converting to electric for strategic reasons, not economic. They don’t get along with the big oil producers so coal works better for them, even if they have to import it. Also, the country is really small…you could go right across the country from top to bottom in about 4 hours so you don’t really need the long range.
Just about nobody needs the longer range. The US has developed an Urbia/Suburbia structure with long commutes for many — but then there are also parts of the US where people do not have long ways to go to take care of a day’s work and chores.
Sit down and write a log of your driving – many get surprised. A London company that is pushing car share has made quite a few converts by suggesting to prospects that they should log their car use over a month — after which they realize that they use the car for mostly trivial things, and that doing the more demanding ones with a car from the carshare pool makes sense.
Coal industry *hearts* anti-nuke activists. Man our politicians are so dumb when it comes to energy. Bush has had 7 years to get nuclear energy going, but has done NOTHING. Any discussion of electric cars with nuclear power generation is a useless discussion.
Don’t worry, there are plenty of do-gooders that will force these electric vehicles on city dwellers in the US.
@sitting@home:
I wonder how many EV Nanos will end up floating down the Ganges when the batteries have degraded so much that they hold about as much charge as my iPod Nano ?
Isn’t that GM fanboys said of Prius batteries too?
There would be little incentive to repair or recycle after the battery dies as it’s probably the most expensive part in the car.
All over Asia you will find 20-30 year old cars in daily service, mainly becuase labor and maintenece consts are cheap. In India it is not uncommon to recondition batteries (by refilling new chemicals in used cases) and rethread tires. There is no reason to fear that used Nanos will be floating in Ganges rather than put in daily service years after a Tahoe hybrid has found it’s way to scarp yard here in US.
Interestingly, a few upcoming EV’s(/PHEV’s) look to have a MR or RR configuration – the Tesla Roadster, Tata Nano, Mitusbishi i-EV, Smart forTwo EV, and the VW Up! concept.
How many families are multi-car families? At the highwater mark, I think we owned five. Tell me one of those couldn’t have been electric.
As it is, we’re back down to three – and two drivers. Both my wife’s and my own commutes could be handled with an EV.
An EV as the only car? No. An EV as the second (or third…) car? Sure. Why not?
It’s a big enough chunk of the market to justify someone developing a product for it.
DELETED BY POSTER
@ Brendan:
The problem is the average American driver’s idea of fun is driving a big car, high off the ground, with shiney rims, slowly, while talking on a cell phone.
First the societal forces must change, then these technical solutions can gain traction in the main. Another poster commented on testing the waters in the lightweight personal craft market to develop the technology and product… Which of the 2.8 have that much forsight?
That all said, many married couples like the two car, nice car/commute beater approach. The question isn’t will there be a commuter car, but why not an PHEV or EV? I think manufacturers will respond eventually with some form of upgradable battery pack. A basic (lighter/cheaper) ~60 mi pack which will service most needs and an upgrade or two for >200 mi. Combine that with a low top speed say 70 mph, it won’t sell as an only car, but as a 2nd or 3rd car here in the states.
Of course, they’ll drop the top speed further and make the car much lighter in the third world where it’ll actually catch on…..
I am sad for my children and the children they will have. All they will probably know )at least grandchildren) will be glorifed golf carts. They will never get to experience the aural pleasure of a small block V-8, the shriek of a fine inline-6, whirl or a rotary or the rumble of a boxer 4. There will be silence, no manual shifting of the gears, no heel-toeing, no roar as you bang off the rev-limiter, no connection of man and machine, no visceral thrill that comes from driving what we have today. No, they will have dishwashers, toasters and microwave ovens and the car will become just another appliance.
I for one will probably get a big V-8 in my next car, regardless of gas mileage/price. It may very well be the last time I can get or afford to get one and it is an experience I don’t want to miss.
Smoke em if you got em.
Steve_S, the same could be said for your/my generation, who never experienced the pleasure of riding atop a magnificent quarter horse galloping across the open countryside, bonding with the reciprocally loving equine in a way unmatched by dead and lifeless metal, or came to appreciate a fine hand-crafted saddle or buggy whip. Our forefathers would be appalled! ^_^
Point is times change, and humanity adapts.
“… pleasure of riding atop a magnificent quater horse …”
If it was that much of a pleasure, your grandfather wouldn’t have sold that horse and bought himself a gas buggy.
That all said, many married couples like the two car, nice car/commute beater approach.
I don’t think you can begin to solve this problem until you solve the work commute issue. The problem is sometimes(often) you have the spouses working jobs that are at opposite ends of town, so there is NO possibility of sharing the drive. Then there’s the issue of suburban sprawl, zoning laws that concentrate business parks miles away from residential and the fact that people need the freedom to go shopping after work.
“… pleasure of riding atop a magnificent quater horse …”
If it was that much of a pleasure, your grandfather wouldn’t have sold that horse and bought himself a gas buggy.
I think that is the point. People in the future will say the same thing. “If it was that much of a pleasure, people would not have given up the V8”.
However you can go ride a horse today, can the same be said for driving a V-8 in 20 years that isn’t 20 years old? My mone is on no.
Great editorial! I’d also point out in the case of Israel that the country is so small range is less of an issue, so I could imagine more sophisticated (than, say, Nano) cars being developed for that market.
Pure electric cars are not the solution, at least in the short to medium term.
Neither are pie-in-the-sky schemes like hydrogen.
Plug in hybrids are the happy medium of low emmissions and long range. Plus, you don’t actually have to plug them in (good for people who don’t have garages under their control, like apartment dwellers or people who live in urban houses with only on-street parking).
If GM ever actually makes the Volt in quantity at a reasonable price, they should have a hit on their hands, although whether or not they can do so at a price point which is profitable (or do so at all) is still quite unclear.
You know the comments here point out the problem with current hybrids, which are the real BS. An electric vehicle if small and light can be used for a large percentage if not all commutes. To do that it must be efficient. Which means its energy consumption in absolute terms vs. current auto’s has to be pretty low. This is where I thought hybrids would go some 20 years ago. Imagine having a Tesla or similar with less performance at low cost and say 40 mile range. For those long trips, imagine you had a little one wheel trailer with a ten horse gas engine and small gas tank on it driving a generator. It now becomes possible to use this for any distance or purpose suitable for two people with little or no luggage.
I thought serious hybrids would take this approach with detachable IC power sources or similar small sources built in. Maybe it only does 80 mph flat out. Then again, flat out with an IC engine is the most efficient use of that engine. I thought if it caught on maybe most people have an electric and could rent the add on power source for trips or for those with really long commutes. Lots of people rent cars for trips now so it isn’t like this is highly improbable nor impractical. Renting easily attached power units for trips in a handful of standard configurations would be quite simple.
My commute is entirely in a 55mph or less zone. Sometimes that traffic is doing 65 or 70 but it is 5 lanes each way with lots of ramps so a car doing 55mph doesn’t seem uncommon on the right side of the road.
I’m more concerned about acceleration from a stop or acceleration from 40 mph to 65 mph than I am about top speed.
If I had a hybrid or pure electric vehicle that was as big and safe as a traditional mid size car but couldn’t do more than 80mph I’d be ok with that. I’d even consider it if the top speed were 70mph.
I don’t see top speed of 100mph+ as anything but marketing. The only time I’ve ever driven that fast on a divided interstate west of the Mississippi where there isn’t an exit for something like 15 miles and the road is flat and straight. 99% of the roads in the US don’t meet that criteria.